Milosevic trial 'fairer than Hicks would get'

Page Tools

An Australian adviser to the judges in the international case
against Slobodan Milosevic says the alleged Serbian war criminal is
getting a fairer trial than David Hicks will receive.

The claim by Tim McCormack, who is Melbourne University's
professor of international humanitarian law, came as former High
Court judge Mary Gaudron joined the condemnation of the military
commission process that Hicks will face.

Ms Gaudron said the US military commission was "an extraordinary
process, one in which rights are put at risk the truth is
put at risk".

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock responded: "While there might be
retired and armchair critics from Australia, I think the ultimate
decisions in relation to the lawfulness of what is happening is to
be determined by the United States."

Professor McCormack said in the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia, where he is an independent "friend of
the court", the judges are independent of the prosecutors and there
are strict rules on admissibility of evidence.

This contrasted with the US military tribunal that Hicks is due
to face, which "fails to meet any objective standard of fair
trial".

Professor McCormack, who is advising Michael Mori, Hicks'
defence lawyer, said: "I think it is a very sorry state of affairs
when an Australian national has less chance of a fair trial than
Milosevic  or Saddam Hussein."

With some Liberal backbenchers now concerned about how much
fairness Hicks will be accorded, Professor McCormack said he would
be happy to brief MPs on the issues.

Ms Gaudron told ABC radio use of the word "trial" was
disingenuous.

"He (Hicks) is not being tried in any ordinary sense of the
word. He is being subject to a military inquiry."

Ms Gaudron said the military commission process was legal in
that "it follows a presidential decree, which, of course, is the
hallmark by which people are tried in some countries that we would
regard as a dictatorship".

Ms Gaudron said that even if Hicks could not be dealt with here,
he should be tried by the American courts if he had committed a
crime against US law; if he had breached international law, an
international solution should be sought.